3d 1242
I.
2
was ill. In order to return to Cuba, he and a companion, using gasoline and
cigarette lighters, hijacked a National Airlines DC-10 flight bound for San
Juan, Puerto Rico from Miami and ordered the crew to fly the aircraft to Cuba.3
Upon arrival in Havana, Fonseca-Machado was arrested by Cuban authorities
and spent the next five years in prison. After his release from prison in 1985,
Fonseca-Machado lived openly in Cuba under his own name.
3
In June 1993, nearly thirteen years after the hijacking, Fonseca-Machado and
two companions undertook to travel from Cuba to the United States by raft.
They were rescued by a United States Coast Guard cutter off Key West,
Florida, and taken to the nearby base. A records check revealed an outstanding
FBI arrest warrant for the 1980 hijacking offense. Fonseca-Machado was
indicted within thirty days.
II.
4
Fonseca-Machado claims that he was not a fugitive from justice because the
Government cannot show that he intended at the time he departed the United
States to avoid prosecution. The Government claims that a person who departs
for a legitimate reason from the jurisdiction in which his crime was committed
but who later remains outside that jurisdiction for the purpose of avoiding
prosecution is a fugitive from justice.4
III.
6
The Government urges us to extend the doctrine of constructive flight, for the
purpose of tolling the statute of limitations under Sec. 3290, to this circuit. We
decline to do so as the facts in this case do not warrant such action. The record
here does not depict a case of constructive flight. It depicts actual flight.
prosecution, sufficient enough to toll the statute of limitations under Sec. 3290.
IV.
8
AFFIRMED.
Honorable Reynaldo G. Garza, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit,
sitting by designation
This theory, known as the doctrine of constructive flight, has been used in other
circuits for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations pursuant to Sec.
3290. See United States v. Catino, 735 F.2d 718 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 855, 105 S.Ct. 180, 83 L.Ed.2d 114 (1984); United States v. Gonsalves,
675 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 837, 103 S.Ct. 83, 74 L.Ed.2d
78 (1982). This court has applied the doctrine in a non-Sec. 3290 context. See
Schuster v. United States, 765 F.2d 1047, 1050 (11th Cir.1985)